What's new
By:
Filters
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Nepenthes Nomenclature

Joseph Clemens

Joseph Clemens

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
I don't get it. Several of the entries don't even have photos. There is no such thing as N. x platychila, this is not a nothospecies with an "x" preceding its name, it is a full on species, Nepenthes platychila.

And, the name is N. thorelii x (x trusmadiensis), not N. thorelii x xTrusmadiensis. [though N. x trusmadiensis is not an accepted name, it is actually, N. macrophylla x lowii]
 
Last edited:
Probably Nan,it would make more sense to me, maybe its because there is speculation as to if the original seed parent was pure
 
Last edited:
Sure, but putting the "x" before the species epithet, is the way to denote that it is a nothospecies, which it is not.
 
Not a Number said:
In which case perhaps N. platychila × ? would be the better designation,
Click to expand...

How can you be sure that the mother plant is N. platychila?

It could just as easily be N.(fusca x platychila) x parentage or N. Platy [not a valid Nepenthes species, and certainly not with an initial cap used for its spelling] x {N. fusca x N. (veitchii x platy [again, "platy" is not the name of any Nepenthes species, if you mean, N. platychila, you really should spell it out, completely - this forum can have a much wider audience, than you may assume. There is room for plenty of discussion, even if we just use the names as they have been published. Without the need to make it even more controversial.]}
Exotica Plants (EP), believe they found all three of these species in the mix via the breeding program.
The point is N. platy [again, "platy" is not a published Nepenthes species name] is a dominant parent, something that has been established via EP's breeding with N. rajah, N. villosa and N. maxima, so ultimately there's no real way to know the parentage of the BE [an undefined abbreviation or acronym] TC plants, labeling then " N. Platy [not a valid Nepenthes species, and certainly not with an initial capital used for its spelling] x " is a bit too convenient in my opinion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Red Lowii said:
How can you be sure that the mother plant is N. platychila?

It could just as easily be N.(fusca x platychila) x parentage or N. Platy x {N. fusca x N. (veitchii x platy}
Exotica Plants, believe they found all three of these species in the mix via the breeding program.
The point is N. platy is a dominant parent, something that has been established via EP's breeding with N.rajah, N.villosa and N.maxima, so ultimately there's no real way to know the parentage of the BE TC plants, labelling then " N. Platy x " is a bit too convinient in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well because the seed was collected from a platychila plant in the wild. Honestly, I think its pointless to try to classify it as anything besides N. platychila, many supposed species obviously have some influence from other species, N. macrophylla for example. I think this whole platychila business is an attempt by EP to antagonize Rob, the same thing happened with N. robcantleyi.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
if N. x trusmadiensis [it appears this supposed nothospecies was published as N. trusmadiensis, not the nothospecies N. x trusmadiensis]is not a legitimate nomenclature, then many of the Sarracenia natural hybrid nomenclature are not legitimate either, ie: S. x readii, S. x catesbaei, S. x exornata, S. x excellens.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Which will be argued here shortly as the case. However, the widely accepted denotation for many of these hybrids (be they "official" or not) is understood by the vast majority and does describe to us what the plant pertains to be. And many of these names have been in existence for far longer than we've had the official, register-by-publication nomenclatural rules, so it's somewhat pointless to argue against those at this point, partly because they will continue to be accepted by the vast majority of growers and numerous authors of scientific papers (I have saved a few as I had a project recently on Sarracenia phylogeny) and those that are official and accepted are almost impossible now to separate from those that aren't. N. x kinabaluensis is recognized by some to be a species in its own right due to populations occurring now that are self-sustaining, same with N. x trusmadiensis.
As with all nomenclature and new species/hybrid descriptions, it partly lies upon the individual as to whether or not they wish to accept the name as extant or not. Some great examples of this: N. robcantleyi, N. hemsleyana, the vast majority now of the "N. alata" complex, etc.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Clumpers vs. splitters

Technically they should all be considered one species because they can almost all interbreed with one another and create fertile offspring.

I'm for Nepenthes all being subspecies!

But seriously, if N. x trusmadiensis [it appears this supposed nothospecies was published as N. trusmadiensis, not the nothospecies N. x trusmadiensis]isn't accepted as the name for that naturally occurring hybrid, then I guess... wow -

There seems to be a global Nepenthes industry that needs to be informed of that. :scratch:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Dexenthes said:
But seriously, if N. x trusmadiensis [it appears this supposed nothospecies was published as N. trusmadiensis, not the nothospecies N. x trusmadiensis] isn't accepted as the name for that naturally occurring hybrid, then I guess... wow -

There seems to be a global Nepenthes industry that needs to be informed of that. :scratch:
Click to expand...

Its a global conspiracy! Wake up sheeple!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Heli said:
Its a global conspiracy! Wake up sheeple!
Click to expand...

sheeple-1b.jpg
 
  • #16
Heli said:
Well because the seed was collected from a platychila plant in the wild. Honestly, I think its pointless to try to classify it as anything besides N. platychila, many supposed species obviously have some influence from other species, N. macrophylla for example. I think this whole platychila business is an attempt by EP to antagonize Rob, the same thing happened with N. robcantleyi.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily true, like I said N. platychila genes are more dominant than that of N. fusca. How could you really know if say hypothetically a N.fusca female (hose mtn's form) was pollinated by a N.platychila male. The seed then germinated and you had a plant that looked primarily like N.platychila, this plant then flowered many years on, this plant then again was pollinated by say N.platychila and the seed that made it to TC came from this plant. So what you can potentially have it TC is N. (fusca x platychila) x N.platychila.

I have 3 mature distinct clones from the 12 BE TC clones and none of them match Chien's description. The leaf apex is either acute or the decurrency doesn't continue for more than half of the stem between the internodes, the widest peristome has been 2cm, no where near the extreme of 3.3 cm that Chien wrote about. Some carry appendages, which again counter the description.

I have another 7 immature plants from the BE TC range, so hopefully once they've all grown on, unless there are many repeat clones, it will be safe to say almost none of them match the description.

The few wistuba clones I have seen do not look any more promising than the BE ones. I don't think Chien's description is off or wrong, as I have seen these...

16431878682_8b108206ea_b.jpg


And the leaves and pitchers match the description.
 
  • #17
No doubt that there must be some input from something else in some of the plants in culture, but I wouldn't rule out everyone because of that. The width of the peristome is a bit strange, but the description doesn't say how narrow it can be, only the maximum width. Some seem to have really wide peristome, but it is difficult to estimate peristome size when pitcher size is not known. The acute leaf tip was something that was found on some wild plants, according to Ch'ien and he didn't see those as not being this species. The leaf base decurrency is another matter, that I would expect to see in the cultivated plants. Either something else is mixed in, or in some cases they might need to be grown further into the climbing stage. Even plants pictured here that in most parts fit the description show traits that doesn't (like the lid appendage).

Regards,

Christer
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Sure I'm picky about plant nomenclature, etc. But I'm a CPophile and a quasi-Nepenthophile, and only responding to items that detract from my own understanding of, and enjoyment of these various threads and posts. Also thinking too, about how a beginner, non-CP fanatic, or other persons such as a non-English speaking person might not be able to follow a thread or post. I hope no one takes my efforts as personal. They are not intended that way. I too appreciate, and enjoy, every thread and topic concerning these amazing plants. I only draw the line at inappropriate language and/or temperament.
 
  • #19
mato said:
Not accepted by who?
Click to expand...

Despite the many and various sources for taxonomic information about all plants, including our precious CP, thank you Not a Number, for turning me on to even more sources that I was not yet aware of. My first, goto source for CP taxonomy is the CP Database. It is maintained by Rick Walker and the nomenclatural synopsis is provided by Jan Schlauer. My personal opinion is that Jan is a genius, especially as concerns CP nomenclature and taxonomy. His email address is posted at the CP Database site, and he usually responds quickly and succinctly to inquiries about CP nomenclature and taxonomy.

The CP Database allows quick searches of plant names; all matching entries, only accepted names, or only cultivar names. It is part of the ICPS Webring. All accepted name entries are in bold text, and all others are not in bold text. If you have a question concerning a particular taxons status, I have no doubt that Jan can provide the answers.

Several years ago, when I was still active on the CP Listserv (also run by Rick Walker), Jan was also active, and he was busy answering many similar questions, on the CP Listserv. There are archives, available at the listserv link that can reveal those discussions, for those with the time and interest to check them out.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
items that detract from my own understanding of, and enjoyment of these various threads and posts. Also thinking too, about how a beginner, non-CP fanatic, or other persons such as a non-English speaking person might not be able to follow a thread or post.
Click to expand...

I for one appreciate efforts to clarify taxonomy but I do think that the edits here can go to far. I stumbled on an older nomenclature thread a while ago and I don't want to revive that debate. But I do want to add: There are a lot of folks on this forum who have botanical training and for whom precise nomenclature is important. There are also a lot of hobbyists on here who affectionately call Nepenthes "neps" or use abbreviations (e.g., the earlier "platy") to save space/time, the same way a lot of orchid folks will say "dens" or "pleuros" or "masdies." I certainly wouldn't mind my post being edited because I grossly misspelled a genus or species, used an outdated name, or something to that effect. However, in a thread discussing Nepenthes, I see correcting someone's "argentii" to "N. argentii" as pedantic. It's clear, given the context, that the person was referring to Nepenthes argentii. Likewise, when someone mentions the famously difficult "burb-eddie," which I've seen on here, it doesn't take more than a cursory glance at the rest of the thread to establish the identity of the shortcut. Context matters. Just the other day, at J&L Orchids, Cordelia said to me "if cuthbertsonii doesn't grow well for you, try laevifolium." We were talking about Dendrobiums, and to avoid redundancy, we just used species names. It's the same reason we use pronouns. To argue that--again, in a thread devoted to Nepenthes--"glandulifera" is confusing and ambiguous is a bit like saying the "he" in your above sentence "Jan was also active, and he was busy" is just as ambiguous.

As a linguist by training the egregious spelling errors and total lack of consideration for grammar on public forums bothers me, but at the end of the day those errors don't really impede comprehension or prevent conversation. And conversation is what this is all about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top